So after a life-long love affair and 3 Alembics, I've pulled the trigger on my first custom: 5 string SII. My MK5 has a 3+2 tuner configuration, with the B-E-A strings on the 3 side.

I like that look, but I've seen some the other way, with B-E on the 2 side, and A-D-G on the other. It occurs to me that this configuration (2+3), adds about an inch to the length of the B string which should increase the tension slightly and possibly improve (slightly) the performance of the B string.

Would love to hear the thoughts of anyone with this configuration on a 5 string, or comments from the board in general on your preferred arrangement and why.

The reason my 5s are all 2+3 was originally because back in the day the only low-B string I could find (actually just a giant E) was a little long and I needed the extra distance between the nut and the tuner to allow for the windings to taper down. Because that large string just does not want to bend around a small Schaller or Gotoh post.

There are many more string choices these days so I don't know if that's an issue anymore. And I hadn't thought about the tension thing, that's interesting...

Really large B strings can sometimes have a hard time making the bend from the nut to the tuning peg if the peg is too close to the nut. So having the extra room in a 2+3 can help alleviate that issue; it's a bit of a straighter pull.

I've never understood what effect the length of string beyond the nut and bridge, and the angle of the string as it passes over those two points, has on string tension. One would think that all 34" scale E-strings would feel the same on any instrument but that seems not to be the case. So something is going on there. Peter, Mica, Dave, or anybody, what can you tell me about that? I need a physics lesson!

This is one of those arcane subjects . . . My understanding and observation would be this:

The speaking length of the string is between the nut and the bridge. Aside from two favorite tricks of some (picking the length between the nut and the key for that ring-ding effect, or pushing down on that same length as some sort of vibrato), the length between the nut and the key, and in the case of two piece bridge/tailpiece axes like Alembics or Warwicks, is not involved in playing. Having said that, the bigger a breakover angle (where the strings angle down and away from the plane of the fingerboard at one or both (headstock and the angle between the bridge and the tailpiece)ends supposedly imparts more 'downforce' onto the nut and bridge saddles, ostensibly for more sustain via higher loading of those parts.

In my experience, I've never noticed less tone/sustain on a Fender-style neck (head parallel to the strings, shallow down angle) on the E-string, and it's key is very close to the nut and typically doesn't pass through a string tree like the other strings. I've never heard any difference in a 'stings through the back' bass either.

This sometimes (or even usually) is brought up vis-a-vis sustain. I'd say, again from my experience, on a loud stage, EVERYTHING sustains just because it's so loud. Going direct, through phones with no amp, you find that there are basses that record well and basses that are better left for live work . . . but it usually has not much to do with sustain.

The one physics lesson I would like to see: Tuning is tension. You pull a string up to a given lbs/ft, and you're tuned to the right open note. I'd be interested to see if the down angle promotes this as a mechanical advantage/multiplier, which would account for the difference in 'tension' we seem to feel from one type of bass to another. Throw in scale length, types of core wires/windings in strings, etc., there's a lot going on here !

Think of it this way, Jimmy; to reach a certain pitch, you tune a certain string over a certain scale to a certain tension - but all of this is over the speaking length of the string only. If you make the distance from the nut to the tuner -or the bridge to the tailpiece - longer or shorter, it has no effect on the speaking length; to get that string at that scale to that pitch, you still need to tune to that tension. So, to directly answer your question, the length of the string beyond nut & bridge has no effect on string tension. I don't know about headstock angle; maybe if we could talk to someone from a company that used to increase the headstock angle when reworking Gibsons & Guilds..........

My uncle Google pointed me to an interesting article here: http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htmOf course the string's "tension" has to be the same for a certain string (weight per length) at a certain vibrating length (34" for a long scale bass) and tuned to a certain note. The "tension" can't actually vary without changing the pitch. (Oh duh, I should have known that!)

But as this article points out, the "compliance" of the string could be effected by the extra lengths beyond nut and bridge. As in, if you try to bend the string - IF the string can move freely over the nut and saddle - you would be pulling more string...

Let's say we have a string that is locked at the nut and saddle and you fret a note and then push the string up 1/2" causing the pitch to bend up a certain amount. Now take that same string, anchor it at the bridge and run an extra 100 feet of it between a roller nut and a tuner. With the vibrating part tuned to the same pitch your 1/2" deflection probably wouldn't change the pitch very much. Does that sound right?

I'm guessing the guitar players all know this stuff automatically. I don't do much bending but I do pull on the string and release it to sound the note. That pull probably doesn't move the string across the nut and saddle though so I am probably NOT perceiving "compliance" either. More likely, with my limited experience of playing anything other than my own basses, any weirdness I noticed was due to string weights.

I seem to remember reading somewhere long ago that Jimi Hendrix preferred right-handed Strats strung backwards to left-handed Strats because the longer length for the lower strings from nut to tuner made it easier to bend the lower strings.

The 1/2" bend would change the pitch the same amount in either case; you're still affecting the speaking length - but maybe the extra length past that portion would make the bend easier, as there is more string to pull - a la Bill's Jimi thing.

So, by bending the string 1/2" you are actually changing the "tension" which is what makes the pitch change, right? But Peter, with my theoretical "roller nut" plus 100 feet of extra string beyond it, it seems a 1/2" deflection anywhere in that 103 feet would have a much smaller effect on the overall "tension" of that long string and thus less pitch change. In my mind it would hardly change the pitch at all...

Bill, are you sure Hendrix was talking about the bottom strings? If my thinking is right (highly doubtful) it would seem that maybe the shorter distance of the high-E string to the tuner on an upside-down strat would have made the upper string more pitch bendable...??

Clearly I have no idea what I'm talking about and I might have this completely backwards, but I am enjoying this.

At the risk of going even farther afield from any area of expertise I possess, it seems the frequency of an open note would be determined by the scale, the mass of the string (gauge), and the tension. A lighter gauge string on the same scale would require lower (less) tension to achieve the lower frequency (hence tune down to get "drop D" tuning - less tension).

Of course we're looking for the opposite in a low "B" string - i.e. not "floppy" (less tension). Does it follow then that a heavier gauge string would require more tension, resulting in a "tighter" B string?

PS - thanks for all the input. I'm like Jimmy - interesting discussion (particularly the Hendrix note) - although I don't tend to do a lot of bends on the B string

I'll throw this thought experiment in just to make things a bit more interesting (I think Bob Novy wrote about this in a thread a few years ago). If you make the distance between the nut and tuning peg the same as the distance between the nut and the saddle, and design the peghead so that the string doesn't angle down as it passes over the nut, then strike the string, the nut will be the center point of a vibratory wave. Thus half the energy of the sting is absorbed in the non speaking part of the string. This effect probably diminishes the more the peghead is angled down as the nut absorbs more of the energy. This seems to suggest that the shorter the distance from the nut to the tuning peg, the less energy is transferred into that part of the string beyond the nut. However it seems unlikely that on a normal peghead the difference would be material.

Jimmy: if you were bending the entire 103' that might hold true, but you're not; the nut isolates that 34" (32", 30.75", 25.25", whatever), and it's all you're bending. As far as the speaking length of the string is concerned, those other 100' don't exist.

John: you're exactly right. If you change gauge/mass, you have to change tension to keep pitch; bigger string + same pitch = more tension & the vice would, of course, be versa.

Terry: OK, we saw Neil's Alembic sold not too long ago; I didn't know he had a Modulus, too. And every one I've seen was opaque - but here's a sheer Fender! (nyuk nyuk)

John, you have it right: lighter gauge string = lower tension for the same pitch. I used to play a .120 for a low-b and changed to a .125 a few years ago. Slightly more tension and slightly truer fundamental - to my ear. But at some point a giant string starts to act more like a solid rod than a flexible string and the overtones get weirder and weirder. Upright bass scale is in the 41" - 43" range just for reference.

Dave, (with apologies to John for completely derailing his thread!), check this out... On traditional stringed instruments the length of string beyond the bridge is significant. Finger a very high note on violin and you are likely to reach that 1/2 and 1/2 scenario you just mentioned. Even below that point the beyond-the-bridge string can cause problems by being near a harmonic overtone of the note you're trying to play. This kind of interference is called a "wolf" and they fix it by clamping a small piece of brass onto the offending string. Like this:

At least on our instruments these "extra" string bits are not within range of the pickups!

Rusty, Yes, using the same gauge strings and the same tuning on a shorter scale would require less tension so - more flop.

I know Bill meant the lower strings in the Hendrix reference but I'm still trying to wrap my wee brain around this... Peter, the reason I keep saying "roller nut" is because I don't think the nut completely isolates the playing part of the string from the other bits. The string has to be able to move through the nut for us to tune it. So I am theorizing that a 1/2" deflection anywhere along my extreme 103' string would have little effect on the overall string tension. If done in the playing section, I would think part of the 100 extra feet would be pulled across the nut and equalize the change in tension.

On a normal Strat when you bend the high-E string does it not also tighten the short piece between the nut and the tuner? That's the crux of the issue. My uneducated guess is that there could be some "compliance effect" involved with these extra bits of string.

OK, I'll stop now - really. We need to do some experimenting! (Where did I put that 103' string I had?)

Hey John, congratulations on the custom. Taking any bets on whether or not we get together before it's finished?!

My Orion 5 had the 3+2 headstock. When it came time to replace the strings I went with a heavier gauge, wish I could remember which brand and size, that was some years ago. An unexpected bonus was a less floppy B, or as we're referring to here - more tension. Conversely, I once tried TI Jazz Rounds on my Anniversary. Great feel under the fingers, lovely sound. But being "low tension" strings they were ultimately too floppy. I would think that your choice of string (gauge, core, etc) will have a greater influence on the stiffness of the string more so than how much "extra" pull you have beyond the nut, or the saddle for that matter.

And just because I'm an impertinent sod, go with the 2+3 and the fan headstock. IMO, the coolest headstock Alembic offers.

First one (Sunburst, logo on center) is newest one. It seems smaller than old one.

Next 3 shots are mine. These are made 1976', 77', 89'.(left to right). 76' is MSB, 3+2 head with long scale strings. Low B strings is winding up all tapered part. 77' is LSB, 2+3 head with Super long strings (Fodera strings). The strings are fit very well. 89' is LSB, 3+2 head with long scale strings. The string taper is started neerest on the nut.

Next 2 cone head 5 strings are Medium scale. Mac. Ebony head with Low B Alembic strings and 3+2 cone head with Hi-C strings.

You need to be happy with what you choose, this isn't like painting a room (I have opinions about that, too, bwahahahahaha!). Then again, you can always have a custom headstock created. Not helping, am I? Better leave you alone before I talk you into building MY bass!

This movie shows how a string doesn't moves in simple motion mode, like we would expect when a string is fixed by its extremeties, having the middle free to bounce.

Whenever one body vibe, it assumes a particular vibration due to its mass, dimensions and elasticity. But it doesn't moves solely in fundamental pattern, making a single bow in the middle. Every move that preserves its extremities fixed can stabilize on a string and this is called Harmonic Series, where one string will move in whole numbers fractions (as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and so on).

So a string really moves (vibrates) simultaneously in several ways, making 2 bows at 2nd harmonic, 3 bows at third harmonic and every multiples or partials of the main fashion. We can't see, but we can hear what this causes to Tone itself, because Harmonics can attenuate or reinforce the main movement (fundamental or first harmonic), changing the final or summed way string oscilates, making its tone to sound unique... And explains why matters where we place PUs (since each harmonic's peak of string movement is stronger in different places), as you push PU towards the bridge, you increasingly put it far from main bow and closer to the bow of one higher harmonic.

A simple tone is what you hear with a Senoid, the sound of your telephone tone or any simple electronic oscilator. Plain and boring. But natural sound sources always move in harmonic way. Whenever you hear 55Hz from your open A string, you hear also its harmonics (110Hz, 165Hz, 220Hz, 275Hz etc) and is the interaction of them all that defines Tone (not forgetting the fact that the body mass, proportions, constructive techniques and materials will also filter each harmonic, changing final tone as well).

It doesn't necessarily relates to the headstock configuration subject, since strings will be before the nut and supposedly will not interact with main string vibration. Tension is also a thing more related to string mass and elasticity (material and gauge) and shouldn't matter too.

I think that this choice 3+2 or 2+3 relates more with the way a string will bend before nut and how this changes string stiffness at the nut, how nut is forced sideway and downward and how effective the nut will isolate vibration at scale (desired) and at the headstock (undesired, since it will drain energy from string move).